NCLAT: Cannot Withhold Income Tax Refund Received by Bank During CIRP In CD's Account  ||  All. HC: With S. 111 of BNS Covering 'Organised Crime' It Appears Gangsters Act has become Redundant  ||  P&H HC: Cannot Allow Changes in Admission Form after Submission  ||  Bom. HC: Findings in Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Relied Upon While Adjudicating Civil Proceedings  ||  P&H HC Directs Jail Authorities to Decide Parole Applications within Four Months  ||  Allahabad HC: Merely Supporting Pakistan Will Not Prima Facie Attract Section 152 of BNS  ||  HP HC Upholds Wife’s Claim of Adverse Possession after Husband’s Death  ||  Patna HC: Maintenance may be Allowed in Disputed Marriages if Relationship Was Socially Accepted  ||  Karnataka HC: State to Respond in 3 Weeks regarding Mandatory Teaching of Kannada  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Unhappy in Marriage is No Proof of Abetment of Suicide    

Siddhesh Shriapd Mitkar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (01 Jun 2021)

Mere rejection of the explanation does not entail levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act

MANU/IP/0084/2021

Direct Taxation

The Appellant is an individual engaged in the business of builders and land promoters. Present is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act).

On mere reading of the assessment order, it is evident that, the Appellant had offered an explanation in support of the sources for the cash deposits. It is stated by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings as well as proceedings before the learned CIT(A) that, the cash deposits were made out of the withdrawals made from the bank through ATM. The Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) had rejected this explanation by holding that, no documentary evidence in support of the explanation was filed. It is not the case of the lower authorities that, the assessee had filed a false explanation as result of which additions were made. It is settled position of law that, mere rejection of the explanation does not entail levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

In the light of the above settled position of law, present is not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, Tribunal directs the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs.9,51,170. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   PENALTY   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved